Pink Slip And Fall

Posted on April 2, 2010 by Ed Trapolin

Jerome C. Ardoin, Jr. was terminated from his employment with CLECO Power, LLC (“Cleco”) on a Friday morning. Mr. Ardoin was informed of his termination at Cleco’s Work Center in Opelousas but his office with Cleco was located in Eunice.  Cleco gave Mr. Ardoin permission to return to his Eunice office the following Monday morning to collect his personal effects and return any Cleco property in his possession. While clearing out his office on Monday morning, Mr. Ardoin slipped and fell and sustained serious physical injuries.

Mr. Ardoin filed a disputed claim for compensation against Cleco, under Louisiana’s Workers’ Compensation (pdf) scheme, seeking wage benefits, medical treatment, and penalties and attorney fees. Cleco denied liability. Both parties filed motions for partial summary judgment addressing Mr. Ardoin’s employment status at the time of the accident. The Workers’ Compensation Judge granted Cleco’s motion, denied Mr. Ardoin’s motion, and dismissed his claim. 

Mr. Ardoin appealed the administrative law judge’s rulings to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal, arguing that the administrative law judge erred as a matter of law in determining that he was not covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act.  He pointed out that he was injured on his employer’s premises while wrapping up the affairs of his employment pursuant to an agreement with the employer.

The appellate court was tasked with determining whether Mr. Ardoin should be considered acting within the “course and scope” of his employment when he was clearing his desk. Reviewing Louisiana jurisprudence on the subject of employees seeking Workers’ Compensation benefits for injuries sustained before or after work hours, the court concluded that the time period between termination of employment and the injury was determinative. The Third Circuit held that a terminated employee could be considered acting within his course and scope of employment if he was injured on his employer’s premises within a “reasonable” amount of time of the termination. The court found that the delay between the Friday evening termination and the Monday morning injury was an unreasonable period of time. Thus, the court concluded that Mr. Ardoin was not acting within the course and scope of his employment and affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s determination that he was not entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits. 

Notably, one judge dissented pointing to the fact that the delay resulted from Cleco’s insistence that Mr. Ardoin wait until Monday morning to clean out his office.  Accordingly, the dissent argued that Cleco granted Mr. Ardoin what it considered a reasonable time and that the injury occurred during this period. Therefore, Mr. Ardoin’s delay should not be considered unreasonable. 

Take Away: When terminating an employee, an employer should require the employee to immediately vacate the premises so that the employer may be afforded tort immunity for workplace injuries under the Workers’ Compensation scheme.

This article was co-authored by McDonald Provosty, an associate at Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore LLC. 

Tags: , ,

Employers Beware: The Worker's Compensation Act does not bar personal injury claims related to damages caused by your office building

Posted on January 12, 2010 by Douglas Moore

On June 17, 2009, the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit determined that employees could recover in tort against their employer for injuries alleged to have been caused by the workplace.   The case, Watters, vs. Department of Social Services, involved the now infamous Plaza Tower Office Building located at 1001 Howard Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana that was leased almost entirely by the State of Louisiana. Following numerous media reports in the Fall of 2001 concerning the potential existence of “toxic mold” in the Plaza Tower, a class action was filed on behalf of all State employees who were assigned to work in the Plaza Tower from September 1996 to February 2002. The Plaintiffs alleged that they had complained of, among other things, water leaks, defective elevators, the presence of unknown toxic substances, and safety hazards. They further claimed that, during their occupancy of the building, they suffered excessive illnesses, including sinus and allergy problems, debilitating headaches, skin irritation, watery eyes, and fatigue. In addition to suing the building’s owner, the Plaintiffs also sued the State – their employer – on the grounds that the State had breached its duty to provide a safe work place. In response to the suit, the State sought the protections of the Louisiana Worker’s Compensation Act (pdf) and to have the matter dismissed on those grounds, arguing that the Statute shielded it from tort liability. Although the Court recognized that the duty to provide a safe workplace was a specific statutory provision contained within the Worker’s Compensation Act, it nonetheless concluded that the duty could also sound in tort.   Relying on its decision in Ruffin v. Poland Enterprises, L.L.C., the Court refused to apply the Worker’s Compensation bar and, instead, concluded that the clerical employees' claims against their state employer for exposure to mold in the workplace fell outside the scope of protections afforded by the Workers' Compensation Act.  The court reasoned that such exposures were not: a work related accident; an occupational disease; or, peculiar to or characteristic of clerical employment.

Take-Away: The existence of hazardous conditions in the workplace – unless the hazardous condition is associated with the general nature of the work performed– can form the basis of tort liability against employers for failing to provide a safe workplace.

Tags: , , , ,